You're talking about giving people a license to troll on the top three social media sites. That'll kill them fast. It's actually not a bad plan if you want to destroy all social media sites.
This is the net. Facebook and Reddit, even if they are monopolies, have no power to stay monopolies. As long as you've got a valid credit card that isn't maxed out, you can start your own site, with virtual hookers and virtual blow. It won't be easy to get as big as Facebook, but it wasn't easy for Facebook to get that big either.
Nor is this anything new. When I was young, the news sources had mainstream points of view. You had to know the right people or go to one of THOSE places to get anything more sexual than naked women with a list of turn-ons on the back of the centerfold. We survived, and we publicized different points of view.
If you don't like what Reddit is doing, and it isn't directly harming you, ignore it. If you want to start your own site with stuff I find offensive, I'll ignore your site. It's really, really easy to get set up on the net.
Reddit has precisely no responsibility to do what you think they should do.
Freedom of speech needs to allow a lot of immoral crap. It needs to allow promoting illegal activity as long as that doesn't turn into inciting violence.
However, this is not a free speech issue. Reddit has a right to police what's said on Reddit, much as I have a right to restrict what's said in my home. If it were illegal to start your own discussion site to promote the murder of all left-handed people, I'd be more worried.
This isn't a free speech issue. If you can't say what you want on Reddit, either find some place else or set up your own website and advertise it. (It's easy to set up websites on AWS, and presumably other services.)
Free speech has never included the right to use somebody else's podium. Freedom of the press has never included the right to own your own printing press.
My friends and relatives tend to pair off. It doesn't necessarily involve legalities, and it isn't always opposite sexes. I don't have all that many who are definitely single.
Evolution doesn't care about person-years. Evolution cares about survival of enough beings to keep a viable population going on, and that isn't simple. It may be that having more non-reproducing adults around helps that.
I'm not trying to sell Bibles here, just noting what it says.
Most Christians seem to think that the sin of Sodom was anal or homosexual sex, despite the fact that the Bible specifies what the sin was. It's occasionally fun to bring things like that up around Christians with attitudes I don't like.
I'm not claiming that police never violate people's Constitutional rights. Searching for available weapons is reasonable. Searching for anything else on the pretense of searching for available weapons isn't, and ideally this will come up in any trial or lawsuit. That's generally not how things work nowadays, which is unfortunate.
You can let an employee go with no documentation or counseling or anything, or any reason. They're then eligible for unemployment benefits, which costs you money. In the US, that's quick and simple. Firing someone for cause usually means they don't get unemployment benefits, and that makes it worthwhile for the ex-employee to contest the cause.
If you're firing someone for cause, you need to document the cause in case of challenge. If you're just letting someone go, and you're okay with them collecting unemployment, there will be no challenge, and no documentation is necessary. (Exception: there are some reasons you can't legally use to lay someone off, such as sex, race, sexual favors, etc., and if you suspect a suit on that basis you should have the documentation.)
Now, if you fire someone for cause, so they don't get unemployment benefits, and the ex-employee contests that, the documentation and counseling is going to be important. If you fire someone for poor performance, and you don't have documentation showing that the employee was counseled and put on probation or whatever, you're going to lose and the ex-employee will get benefits.
It's not about employment law. It's about unemployment insurance.
In this case, what is justice? You seem to think that it doesn't mean inconveniencing anyone who already has an advantage. It does make white supremacists feel better about themselves, though, which I suppose is the whole point.
Sure. Making relationships between the black community and the police better could help. So could putting better schools in poor areas. That wouldn't address actual racism, though.
The Universe just is. We make up ways to describe it. If the Tao works to describe it, it's at least a useful concept.
Similarly, mathematics is not falsifiable*, but we find that it's exceedingly useful in understanding the Universe.
*There is no conceivable experiment that would falsify any mathematics. It's conceivable that we'd find that the standard axiom systems are inconsistent, but we could revise the axiom systems. We do know that math is either incomplete or inconsistent or both.
MobyDisk referred to a Scientific American article which said, basically, that if there was both matter and antimatter in the observable universe, there would have to be a boundary with matter on one side and anti-matter on the other. No matter how sparse the matter was at the boundary, it would create a lot more gamma rays than we detect.
Dark matter has properties that regular matter doesn't, such as clumping differently. I really don't understand why people have so many problems with the idea of dark matter. There's something we call matter from its gravitational effects. We can't detect it with electromagnetic means. Therefore, we call it dark. People seem to believe in neutrinos, and neutrinos are dark in the same sense.
It's hyperbole, but we happen to know that the observable universe is made of matter, not anti-matter. (I suppose we could say it is made of anti-matter instead of matter, taking a somewhat different point of view.) Any explanation of the origin of the Universe has to account for this somehow. If there was a difference between the properties of matter and anti-matter, we'd have the beginnings of an explanation.
Conceivable. I knew a scientist who believed that evolution had been guided by God (can't argue with that, it's not falsifiable). However, where did the sentient you;'re talking about come from? Sentient influence really doesn't explain more things than it requires explanation for.
Nobody intelligent admits that genetics is 90% of everything because it isn't. Last I checked, something like 50% of the variance in intelligence in people was accounted for by looking at the intelligence of their parents. This doubtless overstates the genetic component, since there's lots of environmental factors that tend to be similar between parents and children.
The reason is cultural, and you've pretty well summed it up. Other ethnic groups don't seem to share the same culture.
My son was in a talented youth math program. Nomination was by teachers, and the kids taking the entrance exam were very heavily East Asian in ethnicity. The exam was designed to test for mathematical ability rather than education or experience, and the ethnic balance of the kids that got in was much more like the ethnic balance in the local population (much lower in blacks, though). This suggests that the East Asian kids were doing better on the basis of work and study, not ability. (It also suggests that there's a lot of talent among blacks that is just being wasted.)
People driving commercially in most jurisdictions need commercial licenses and commercial insurance. Uber tends to pass on that, blaming the drivers if they don't have it.
The government requires insurance, and there's good reasons for that. The reason commercial insurance is more expensive is that insurance companies find they need to pay out more. Therefore, a Uber driver with the typical personal policy doesn't have insurance while working for Uber.
Commercial drivers' licenses have good reason also. I'm on the road something over an hour every workday. An Uber driver might be on the road eight or ten hours in a typical workday. If we're equally likely to get into accidents, the Uber driver will get into eight or ten times as many, so we want to have reason to believe they're above-average drivers.
You're talking about hiring pools, which are irrelevant, since the Latina women in question were already hired by Uber. The question is the quality of their work (apparently good) compared to their pay (apparently not as good).
We're not talking about Uber hiring nor not hiring people. We're not talking about generalities. We're talking about Latina women being evaluated as being at least as productive as their white male colleagues and being paid less, with no obvious reason other than sex and ethnicity. If Latina women as a group are singularly inept at engineering, that doesn't matter, because we're talking about specific women who are good at what they do. If the hiring pool is short on Latina women, that doesn't matter, since Uber hired these ones.
I'm not calling you a racist, but I'm not calling you intelligent or convincing either.
Plaintiffs apparently have evidence in Uber's personnel files that they're as productive as white male engineers who earn more. You're throwing out a lot of verbiage that includes a lot of lame assumptions. What matters is that the women are not paid right now according to their productivity right now. If the white men are doing things that are better in the long run than the Latina women, then their productivity will differ later on.
What you seem to be saying, with a lot of unnecessary vitriol, is that you think Uber's practices are just fine, regardless of not citing any actual evidence, and that any minorities or women complaining have to be wrong. You're making a very definite judgment without bothering with actual facts.
Slashdot Mirror
You're talking about giving people a license to troll on the top three social media sites. That'll kill them fast. It's actually not a bad plan if you want to destroy all social media sites.
This is the net. Facebook and Reddit, even if they are monopolies, have no power to stay monopolies. As long as you've got a valid credit card that isn't maxed out, you can start your own site, with virtual hookers and virtual blow. It won't be easy to get as big as Facebook, but it wasn't easy for Facebook to get that big either.
Nor is this anything new. When I was young, the news sources had mainstream points of view. You had to know the right people or go to one of THOSE places to get anything more sexual than naked women with a list of turn-ons on the back of the centerfold. We survived, and we publicized different points of view.
If you don't like what Reddit is doing, and it isn't directly harming you, ignore it. If you want to start your own site with stuff I find offensive, I'll ignore your site. It's really, really easy to get set up on the net.
Reddit has precisely no responsibility to do what you think they should do.
Freedom of speech needs to allow a lot of immoral crap. It needs to allow promoting illegal activity as long as that doesn't turn into inciting violence.
However, this is not a free speech issue. Reddit has a right to police what's said on Reddit, much as I have a right to restrict what's said in my home. If it were illegal to start your own discussion site to promote the murder of all left-handed people, I'd be more worried.
This isn't a free speech issue. If you can't say what you want on Reddit, either find some place else or set up your own website and advertise it. (It's easy to set up websites on AWS, and presumably other services.)
Free speech has never included the right to use somebody else's podium. Freedom of the press has never included the right to own your own printing press.
My friends and relatives tend to pair off. It doesn't necessarily involve legalities, and it isn't always opposite sexes. I don't have all that many who are definitely single.
Evolution doesn't care about person-years. Evolution cares about survival of enough beings to keep a viable population going on, and that isn't simple. It may be that having more non-reproducing adults around helps that.
I'm not trying to sell Bibles here, just noting what it says.
Most Christians seem to think that the sin of Sodom was anal or homosexual sex, despite the fact that the Bible specifies what the sin was. It's occasionally fun to bring things like that up around Christians with attitudes I don't like.
I'm not claiming that police never violate people's Constitutional rights. Searching for available weapons is reasonable. Searching for anything else on the pretense of searching for available weapons isn't, and ideally this will come up in any trial or lawsuit. That's generally not how things work nowadays, which is unfortunate.
You can let an employee go with no documentation or counseling or anything, or any reason. They're then eligible for unemployment benefits, which costs you money. In the US, that's quick and simple. Firing someone for cause usually means they don't get unemployment benefits, and that makes it worthwhile for the ex-employee to contest the cause.
If you're firing someone for cause, you need to document the cause in case of challenge. If you're just letting someone go, and you're okay with them collecting unemployment, there will be no challenge, and no documentation is necessary. (Exception: there are some reasons you can't legally use to lay someone off, such as sex, race, sexual favors, etc., and if you suspect a suit on that basis you should have the documentation.)
Now, if you fire someone for cause, so they don't get unemployment benefits, and the ex-employee contests that, the documentation and counseling is going to be important. If you fire someone for poor performance, and you don't have documentation showing that the employee was counseled and put on probation or whatever, you're going to lose and the ex-employee will get benefits.
It's not about employment law. It's about unemployment insurance.
In this case, what is justice? You seem to think that it doesn't mean inconveniencing anyone who already has an advantage. It does make white supremacists feel better about themselves, though, which I suppose is the whole point.
Sure. Making relationships between the black community and the police better could help. So could putting better schools in poor areas. That wouldn't address actual racism, though.
The Universe just is. We make up ways to describe it. If the Tao works to describe it, it's at least a useful concept.
Similarly, mathematics is not falsifiable*, but we find that it's exceedingly useful in understanding the Universe.
*There is no conceivable experiment that would falsify any mathematics. It's conceivable that we'd find that the standard axiom systems are inconsistent, but we could revise the axiom systems. We do know that math is either incomplete or inconsistent or both.
MobyDisk referred to a Scientific American article which said, basically, that if there was both matter and antimatter in the observable universe, there would have to be a boundary with matter on one side and anti-matter on the other. No matter how sparse the matter was at the boundary, it would create a lot more gamma rays than we detect.
Dark matter has properties that regular matter doesn't, such as clumping differently. I really don't understand why people have so many problems with the idea of dark matter. There's something we call matter from its gravitational effects. We can't detect it with electromagnetic means. Therefore, we call it dark. People seem to believe in neutrinos, and neutrinos are dark in the same sense.
It's hyperbole, but we happen to know that the observable universe is made of matter, not anti-matter. (I suppose we could say it is made of anti-matter instead of matter, taking a somewhat different point of view.) Any explanation of the origin of the Universe has to account for this somehow. If there was a difference between the properties of matter and anti-matter, we'd have the beginnings of an explanation.
The optimist claims that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist is terrified that it might be true.
Conceivable. I knew a scientist who believed that evolution had been guided by God (can't argue with that, it's not falsifiable). However, where did the sentient you;'re talking about come from? Sentient influence really doesn't explain more things than it requires explanation for.
The Tao is a religious concept, and not falsifiable. That doesn't mean it can't exist, or even be the basis for the Universe.
Alternately, treat them fairly. That will work better in the long run.
Nobody intelligent admits that genetics is 90% of everything because it isn't. Last I checked, something like 50% of the variance in intelligence in people was accounted for by looking at the intelligence of their parents. This doubtless overstates the genetic component, since there's lots of environmental factors that tend to be similar between parents and children.
The reason is cultural, and you've pretty well summed it up. Other ethnic groups don't seem to share the same culture.
My son was in a talented youth math program. Nomination was by teachers, and the kids taking the entrance exam were very heavily East Asian in ethnicity. The exam was designed to test for mathematical ability rather than education or experience, and the ethnic balance of the kids that got in was much more like the ethnic balance in the local population (much lower in blacks, though). This suggests that the East Asian kids were doing better on the basis of work and study, not ability. (It also suggests that there's a lot of talent among blacks that is just being wasted.)
People driving commercially in most jurisdictions need commercial licenses and commercial insurance. Uber tends to pass on that, blaming the drivers if they don't have it.
The government requires insurance, and there's good reasons for that. The reason commercial insurance is more expensive is that insurance companies find they need to pay out more. Therefore, a Uber driver with the typical personal policy doesn't have insurance while working for Uber.
Commercial drivers' licenses have good reason also. I'm on the road something over an hour every workday. An Uber driver might be on the road eight or ten hours in a typical workday. If we're equally likely to get into accidents, the Uber driver will get into eight or ten times as many, so we want to have reason to believe they're above-average drivers.
You're talking about hiring pools, which are irrelevant, since the Latina women in question were already hired by Uber. The question is the quality of their work (apparently good) compared to their pay (apparently not as good).
We're not talking about Uber hiring nor not hiring people. We're not talking about generalities. We're talking about Latina women being evaluated as being at least as productive as their white male colleagues and being paid less, with no obvious reason other than sex and ethnicity. If Latina women as a group are singularly inept at engineering, that doesn't matter, because we're talking about specific women who are good at what they do. If the hiring pool is short on Latina women, that doesn't matter, since Uber hired these ones.
I'm not calling you a racist, but I'm not calling you intelligent or convincing either.
Plaintiffs apparently have evidence in Uber's personnel files that they're as productive as white male engineers who earn more. You're throwing out a lot of verbiage that includes a lot of lame assumptions. What matters is that the women are not paid right now according to their productivity right now. If the white men are doing things that are better in the long run than the Latina women, then their productivity will differ later on.
What you seem to be saying, with a lot of unnecessary vitriol, is that you think Uber's practices are just fine, regardless of not citing any actual evidence, and that any minorities or women complaining have to be wrong. You're making a very definite judgment without bothering with actual facts.